Amicus Curiae Brief — Morrissey v. Brewer

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

PRILE CORT. 0 St

| selganslbiieonnet fig 29 ase

——— ey Gy

_—— . _ IN ‘THE

“Supreme Court of the Huited States

Uc TOBER Term, 1971

-No. 71'5103

JOHN J. Morkrissey- and G. Dos ALD Boonen;

Pe titioners,

—V.—

Lou V. Brewer, Warden,

Respondent.

| | BRIEF OF THE MERIC. AN CIV IL LIBERTIES UNION.

AMICUS CURIAE

Metvin L. Were

MieHELE HE RMANN- Day

Herman Sc HWARTZ

Rovert PLOTKIN

RicHaRb SINGER

JOEL Gora |

~Ame ‘rican Civil L iberties \Union

156 Fifth Avenue

- New York, New York 10010:

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

—

‘ e . °

‘ =~ ; IN D EX. -

ee ae

ad ~, :

PAGE

Interest Of Amicits: ctl cece cecceeeleseseeesetteteseeseeeeees -

Th® Question Presented 22..21.00.02022002.2----- en aces *

I. Introduction ...... beenessteaesne pease ge ts Aechuvctaxeoadetieceaetes eee 2

If. The seriousness of the loss of a man’s freedom,

~. fyndamental coneepts of fairness, and basic

penological goals-of re habilitation all require

the application of | due process before the revo-

cation of probation and Parole woe eee .. . 4

ltl. The traditional justifications for denying due

_ process at the revocation of probation or parole ,

_-are neither logically nor legally sound .00...... 10

A. The Conditional Liberty Enjoyed by a Per-

son on Parole or Probation Is Not a Matter.

of “Grace” Which Can Be Revoked at the-

Whim of the State 2202... ees es tee LO

B. Due Process Guarantees Apply to the Rey o-

-ation: of Probation and Parole: Even if the -

Probationer or Parolee Is Considered in

Some Sense: Still to Be “in ‘Custody Al-

» though ‘Released: From Prison 2.000000. 13

- IV. Due process requires a hearing pe revoca-

tion ef probation or’ parole os. 17

A. The Grounds for Finding a, V iolation of the ‘

: Conditions 6f Probation or Parole Seestasstecceese | LE

B. The Requisites of a Heating oe, Co.

‘ , % -

\° J

\ J

\ oe

| *

‘ \.

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A—He raring Re quire a ror Parole Re ‘vocation

by aac ee cB tete tn ge ete eee eee ae 22

APveNDIYA—A Huey Ae Stuer of Parole Rules, 1

Crime and Delinqueney 267, 262-2038 (L969) s.. tt OP

, | ms . : e

. AuTHorities Crrep

Cases? .

Alvatez ve Eurher, 422 on «| "14 (ott ! c ir. 19TO)-

Areiniega ve. Preemn, 404 ts. 4 ia 1) |

)

“Ashworth vo U nited, States, % BO] be Yd 240 (Oth © is 1196S) — 4

Baxstrom ve. Herold, os3 Us. Loe (1906)

ae ee AS

Bearden v, State of South Garolina, 443 1 Ir Dae 1090

(4th Cir 1571)... connec —— 2521

Belly. Burson, 402 US. 433 ani LY eects tetertindecn OS 12

° Berger v, (qifornia, 3 393 U. ae (1960) F os eres 1

Boddie v . Conficeticut, 401 [ S.371 (1971)

Bundy v. Cannon, 328 —. ‘Supp. 16a (1. Mal. Ad)

Carothers vy. Poilotte. B14 °F. Supp. OM ( S.D.N.Y. ts

“ 19TH) ooacsseecue . ae |

Carter vc MeGinnis, 3200 F.

Supp. 10920 (WLDINLY.

1970) = pete

Chase v. 2 aee, 46 Pied. 500 VOL Cr. 1964))

Clichette ve. P rocunier, 328 FL Supp. 767 (3-0 ‘al.

HOTT) cet lictopcecceseenencnenses "atc tteciasesss -

: poleningen a) v. incon, 493 Pa. 328, 249). A 2d. He

(CL9657) °

can

= |

dl.

| | se? _ —. PAGE

Covington v. Harris, 419 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1969). ..... 15

‘Curtis y. Bennett, 256 Iowa, 1164, 131 NW, 2d 1 (1964),

cert. denied, 380 U. S. 058 (1965) ool cee lee 3

Dabney © Cunningham, 317 I Supp. a (ED. X'.

17 (1) ene ee: OE OP oe MH

pane % We elr, 328 F. Supp. ala (X. D. Gh 1971) ae 12

kdwards ‘. Schmidt, 321 F = SUPP. | 6S CW.D. Wise ae

¢ TOTVY cece ct ee pole coc encend covig bas ineseaveena~-neiees 15

Esealera v. New, York City Housing Authority, “425

F.2d 853 ¢ 2d Cir. ). cert. denied, 400 U. S..853 (1970) |

12,19, 227

Eseoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490 (4935) ween pee 10"

. Elhenor-v. Hammond, 116 F.2d, 982 (6th. Cir. 1941) 0 6

Fleming. v. Tate, 156 F.2d 848 (D.C. Cir. 1940 ccc, 9, 18

Gargan v. State, 217-So.: aa DTS (Ct. App. Fila. 1969) . 4

- Genet v..U nited- States, “B75 F. ap ae (10th Cir. N67). 18) °

. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S a (1910), seatessieaeey 10, i, ‘1,

~ Lo é era! 7 |b ad aa

- Goolsby v..Gagnon, 399 Er. Sic. 460 iene 1971) |

ae ee BIS

Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385) (1914). Beagrie gegpensneces Iv

- Greene y. McElroy, 360 US. 474 (1959) 11, 19, 20

Groppi v. Leslie, —— U.S. ——. 40 UC aL W. 4 aT

(Jan. 13, 1% 2) veceetcegt geecseusascacs Oo cecsotueuesecbsstecceccasceood ole ’ Ly

Gunsolus v. Gagnon, 10: Cr. . J. 228 2 (7th Cir. Dee. 28,

WOTL) eae... setae Soe pencessenensecceneesezeczes Petit cacesetigs OED)

ee yl ect

eo at fs

Fe oh caine : etn Bae

Hahn v. Burke, 430 PD ‘100 (ath ( r. 1970) ° ie 13°}

Haines Ke mer, os 4 ee ee tb, L W. Al: IO (. Jan.

as 2) ae fcc Maliedig A audience tele Ad,

dlannah vy. Larehe, 3638: US: 420 i960)" ae ae alas ae ll

Hewett v, North Carolinas 415° Pd 1316 (sth.

mesh atererttees Cayrenes Seat vide Grit AenadpedeeReniptaah reed j opera i

Johnson ve Averys BUSTS, 483 (i960) veneibavit cenartaien se Hi .

Ihint Anti- Fascist Refugoe Committee ve. MeGrath, .\

B40 1.8. 123. (1951) ....)..... pisccrnicbed Beantneadecehposnnnodieégdupal Ly 19

KMtaaet ‘al.’ “Ohid AC falt Parolyy Author, a ne eae alle

Supp. G6r (X. 1). Olhifo 107 1) wenes'e es hweus sk scesundeaies noses 6 7

_ Landman ve Peyton, S704 2d 135 (4th Cir. 1 Ney” ~ M

Landman \. Royster, 338, Ff. Sup Pe O21 (

CF 6 Sanne eee eet meee a ee as 14, 29.

Neto 0 v. Burke, 2854, Supp. 67 (1.D, Wise, I68) 015

Meikpav. Rhay, 889 UIS. 428. (1967) oe. i Sh ae a 4

“Mene&hino v. Oswald, 450 2 | 4103 ‘he il Cir. -y970)- wore 12

Meola S, e itzpatrick, 322 F.Supp. Ses (dD. Mass. A971) Tt

~ Monks ¥ “New Lersey, SS N.S. 238, 277 Ad 193 (1978) ; J

- Moore v. Rod, 246 Fa 654 (B.C. Cir A957) oe. eereees |.

“Morris v, Tray Kono, a Supp. S57 (D..RL. 1970)... 14

Morrissé Wwe. Bi wer, He Omer | O42 (Sth Cir. 1971). -.2, 13,16

- Murphy 3 y. Turner, 42 5 sep Yd 422 (10th © ir. 1970) Sala dae ’

“Murray v. Page, EP, 1350 (10th? Cir: 19709 Mite. ate me

“a Nolan vxeatati, 4 30. BF Hd B48 ts st (ir. STD) 32) 14.15

Oliver, In re, 383- U. “on (148) Racers Me 3 19 3

| ie

- ' e ” '

+ rat ;

4 - y, 4 we .

; . aes © PAGE

ee ex rel. Mence Aino ve Wi arder mn 27 N.Y RA 376, 200 ae

XN. I3.2d 238, a18 Ss s 2d 449 (1971) sis chicatepacl rey G18

” Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 -( 1565) ae oe wed ‘we, 19

_ Porth v. United States, —— F,Sd —, 10 Cr..L. vo ;

(10th Cir. Dee, 13, 1 vay. Sd Sates Siders oe 16.

Rodriguez: v: “MeGiinnis, 207° I; Supp. 627 (CN, DN.Y.

19609), aff A * ctlinent F.2d. - —— (Doc ket t 35 FY 2d Cir), - .

Jan) 25; 197: 2). sain canpitcesiaies bade: | si iu linenlasd Wabewiess SS astseins 14, 15 -

Rose vy. Haskins, 388° ‘¢ ail OL “(6th Cir, 1968). eek weeds 610,

Pete i yt BY 14

Searpelli i Gagnon, 317 F. “Siupp. 7 F DD. Wise, 1970) “4

‘Sher vy. Board: of Eduication, ar ES a 4 (3rd Cir.

La? END eesti cencrstceeth a teanjiseensaeatlbencticect ead taateeaen Pere 2

~Sherbert v. Verner, 374 t S. 283 (1963) sec Sccncr dean 4s cai seca. 49

Sinclair v. Henderson, 381 I, Supp. 112 23 B D. La. ae

aoe 7k | ee Oe eonssslbusnstncionsnresidbeenecantet Lit ae

Slochower-v. Board of Higher I clue “atl On. 3900S, 3 |

* (1956) °c... HE Wie aI ARE oh oe AOE OR Oe a AT

Sniadach «. Family Finance. Corp.. 395 U.S. 337 CoB) 12 .

_. Sobell y. Reed, 327 BP. Supp. 1294.(8.Doy.Y. 1971)

” Sostre 1 ’ . McGinnis, 44? F.2d 178 (a Cir. AN) eat i, 14,

: - on es, 15. 1s

wiser y. Randall, 357 (FS. 512 (1958) Memes TALS 12

‘tate v. Seymour, 7c te Super. 526, 237 A.2d, 00

BS 8 Cente nde Sed RCN Vesa UR OMRON catia SME ye eee 4y

Thompson v, Louisville, 362.0 im 199 (y 22

‘Tnited bikktss Vv. ‘Baylor, a?1 F.2d 339 oe Cir. 1963) . 18 °

v nited States ex rel. Beyyv - Comnectic “ut nen Beard

of Parole, 443 F. 2d 1079 (2d Cir. 171) 5.9, 12, 18

«Sse hi 16-

-_ @°?

ogee er ; J

s a “he " o < — /

ene | fag .e ae The eM eens pace! o

ON See es /Chited Statp SOX. eb, Campbell” vi Pate, 401. F. 2d 55 f : |

Ne OTR Cir. 1968) apcings desnensBesvccedhoseseesteentcenssnqeentneeeteprenseecabtty HO. - |

so e — “United Stites ex rel.” Cariescia v. Meisner . 83Ll E.. | |

C <i nee Supp. OR9 (Nal Hl, 971): © pesishacsevded veseecpstion: peed 6, 20, 21

~ ye ted. Statys/ ex, rel. Rand vek vy, Pate, 223, tr. Supp.

eK N.D. Te ai) et ee ae eer ania eee Sy

ye AE m4 itoas States ex rel. Mosher v" “hav Valle’, 3 sr : Supp. ~

ws as _ uy, 127 (XN N.LNY, Y, 1970) alan vest sattaoncennsieensgenenna meant . 15 HI

_ *. ae ‘United Sti atesex T rel. Schuster \. He rokl, 410 KF. 2d 1071 )

eS AQ CP AANGD). sscacopeoilicrsatBeaietislsdoassscicbustes secuiee UD ¢

— « v rhino ve Me Corktey eae Supp. - —, 16. Cr. ‘TL. 2201-.

DNS. Nov, Its, TOTE) acts Sarita ent Arne | a

. . Ww arren XY. ‘Michigan’ Parole hogad, 23 Mic h. Mbp. 754. )

rae Soe FAT N. Wi2d Gi, (Ct. App, 1970), appe - Aiswiased,

are, #1. 384 ‘\tieli? S12) 184 NW 2457 (LOTS eee 4, 6

ay illiams y’. Rebinson, 4820 2d 637 (D.C: Cir. L9TD) wu. be

- a fag iliner ‘v. Committee: “on Charac tor’ and Fitness, 373 ; ,

To Ly AEB.96 (1963 y cvleaplecseee sin ep ctasieht dell acigamecbe a dEomsdh stop 19.

ice 7 | Wise onsin v. “Constantineau, 400. U.S4 33 (1971). i >. i

Sitee sys Wriglit, v. ‘Me Mann, 321 F. Supp. 12 i (8. D.N, x: iene .

/ U “énstitutional Py! ov isions: .

. “o nited” ‘States “Constitution 7 “e% i er oe |

; . -+First Amendment .1 wd. beeen dite alseevg need ee secon : 16 ‘

veges Bf ‘i Sixth Amendment Ismet inne es ween 20

oe / an “Fourteenth Améndment 1.0 cel

; - Other Authorities: Faye EE et a UE ad HT ee)

ABA: “Proje et on. ‘Minimum Standards of Criminal : ’

‘ Justice, Standards Re lating. to Probation (Approved '

. Draft. EGO), eacpinetcnseesvtoeanganetesngenrestegtnt isieatians

vil ‘ ,

_A.B.A. Project « on Minin , Standards: of Criminal

PAGE |

- Justice, Staiiel ards Relating, to Pro id? Wy Detouse.

"Service 8 (Approved Draft J868)- Ge diaweumprmaned ‘sieeeeeseses

: -

‘

Aniexiean ‘Law. Institute, Mind: T Pe nal? ¢ ‘ode, O01,

2305.19(1) (Propesed Oflicial Draf 162) - sevesteceeces t

Arluke, Sumurary of Parole Rules, 1) Crime and

-Delinqueney P67 (1969) Lt. Seaamnavniand se slieyaseskens LAG AT

Cohen, F., S¢ ntencing, Probation aud thee Rehabilita.

tive Ideal: The V te we front Me nipaee, Rlay, 47 ian

L. Rev. 1. (1969) ec. ia aissnivuekskvennduncetvasesiapevesaes Ove

Cohen; W., “Due Process, Equal Protection and State:

Parole Rerocuioir Proceedings, 42 0. Colo. L. Rev. :

47 ( (1970). 2 eect Banal estes sseecyexisanttVonesivanasns pac titereasins teepetide LY

comment, Due pie ss and Rivoc vation of ( ‘onditional .

‘Liberty, 12"Wayne L. Rev. G38 (1966)... een 2S ae

Cofnment, rhe doni and Re habili ‘tation in on Pe vo-

cation’ He arings, T2 Yale Ld, B08" (1962) oe. | Ss

Comment,’ Observations on the P Lininiste Lie On Of,

| Parole, 79 Yale 1.7, 698 (1970) <a iapoaadensausivantenveilicaaducss S

Comment, Parole Statins and the Privilege: Cane! pt,

.1969 Duke Lf. 189 2... sesceeseteet castitne teat cnnes pears

| Comment, Proce dubat Safequards » Federal “Parole |

Revocation Hearings, 3 ay Nw. tL. Rev. 734 (1963) x

Davis s, Administrative Za Prentice, § Ye. 11 (1955) ota. 1

Davis, Administratir e Law Tre atise, $7.05 (1958) oe: 19.

” Davis, Adininistrative Law Treatise, 7.16. (1958) wae, 28

~ Davis, “Administrative Law Treatixe. ST.0F (197 |

~ Supp. D nsisnreernrai ss deandancainnsteaniinnsieeda se: gevetinthaassela AL

Dawson, Scxte ncing—The Decision as to Type, Lewath

‘3 and C ‘onditions of Sentence (. American Bar F onnla- .

/ tion 1969) ooccccceceleceee. Aebe taped aac pcbampininchoraaea gs 8,10, 70), vo

. co Vil

ee a ee - . PAGE

~~ . ; _@ ; =

Jacob and Sharma. Juice After Trial: Prisoners’

« se :

Need for Legal Services in the Ci unnal-Corree tonal |

Proquss, LS Nan, L.. Rev, $93" (1970) 2... peseeweeeeeescesseseeee 10

Ka id. The bili neal and ‘the a i pe it. uwthe Peno-

( ‘orrectional Proce xx, th Minn, L.. Rev. $03 (1961 y SSO,

. e A . _

Note, Discre hones Y ir, rocel OMe vf P KoObation and

Parole, The linport of Vi wipe ~ Rh yf fo the Pre Ne nee

System, 4 US a0 Lo. Rev. TG0 (1869) Pad OS

Note, Parole Revocation inthe. Federal. System, DOs

Geo, Lal. TOS (1908) of eee wentcieecen 210.

Note, Parole wit i acation i jucedinrs Sy Pa) Harv. L. Rev,

“300 (1851) ee ee See, ee. - 8

Note, 2 -.birre st of Pavolees : Constitubional Consid- <

erations, 46 Wasi. L. Rev. V5-(IN70) SG

President's Comission on Law Ie inforceme int and Ad-.

ministration of Justice, Th ( halle ng ot Or idire Na?

Pree Socrety (1967) Pe enn Te an, ee -

President’ s* Commisson on haw Enforcement cane Na

ministration of Justice, Corn cons 13 (19Ge) ...... 0. 7.20)

Puch and Carver, [ha Proce. i 0 Senrkem - fvin

| Mapp to Me fp” to Metraithea, Pex. I. Rev: ry

C11) ee at at eos Dh

Rubin, D, ee lopn ins iW Carree hana i. as, rime and, Lo.

. Delinqueney ISS PApril 17) ae Foie, _ a

Rubin, Die-Process Ix Re quired in Parol Revocation

3 Proce dings, June Federal Prabation 4? (19638) 2. 2

Sklar, Law and .P rac fice a Probation onal Parole Revo:

cation He " ings, 55 ASCH. Ta | COX PL SLITS h64) 10

? ° .

- e °

. ix

i . PAGB

Tobriner, Due’ Process Behind Prisén. Walls. The

Nation, Oct. IS) 197k 2 .. neslacertre Moen ceecoutedeereccacess 8

Van Alstyne, The Denrisetof the Rights-Privil de Dis-

tinction in Constitutional Law, S1 Harv. L. Rev. 1439

( LOGS Yee cece SeeennnenTErE hatheoest iusctcpetss 11

Van Dyke, Parole Revocation Hearings in Californias

The Right to Counsel, 59 Cal. L. Revs 1215 (1971) 228

; IN THE | -

Supreme Court uf the United States

= ? OctoBerR Term, 1971 | ;

No. 71-5103 ts

_ * Joun J. Morrissey and G. Donatp Boouer,

“Petitioners,

a. —y.—

. 0° Lou V. Brewer, Warden,

Respondent.

BRIEF OF THE AMERIC AN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION.

AMICUS CURIAE

«Interest of Amicus*

_ The American Civil Liberties. Union-.is a “nationwide,

non-partisan organization -of over 170,000 members dedi-

cated: solely to preservation .of the. liberties .safeguarded

by the Bill'of Rights. During its fifty-one vear existence

the ACLU has been particularly concerned with the- funda...

mental guarantees of due process of law under the Four-

teenth Amendment. In‘the ‘past several years, the ACLU

thas -also bee ‘ome involved in prisoners’, tights cases. and

With ‘bringing the protections of due: proc ‘ss of law to the

prisons. ' More recently, a National Prisoners’ Rights

Project has heen instituted by the-ACLU to increase our

comniitment to this area of erucial national concern. Based

* Letters of consent from the State of Towa and frown counsel for

_ Petitioners have beey filed with the clerk of the @ourt.

- .

”%

onour experience, We feel this case is a vitally important

one, and belie ‘ve that our brief will be of. substantial assis-

tance to the Court.- = .

. . baad

The Question Presented

Whether revocation of parole. or ‘probation’ without no-

tice of charges or a earring. violates the ‘Fourteenth

Amendment of the: United. States Constitution by depriv-

ing a person of libe rts, without due process of law.

. . . «

Antroduction. — >

aon two petitioners jn this case were 1 ranted parole by

the state of Towa. Subsequently. eac te Was arreste «das a

ieee viol tor and retu red, to-prison. Neither was eiven

any notice “the reasons for revocation of their. parole

' Throughout ie rie, arguments wail bé*made whic h apply to

the revecation of both probation and parole, since *(t)he central ,

fact, which applies to both probation .and parole revocations, is

that fevouation. ix the event which operates to‘deprive a man of his.

‘liberti." Guatsby Vv. Gagnon, 322 I. Supp. 460, 463 (ED. Wis.. -

171). This preposition is widely accepted. See Bearden vz State

OF mouth A ‘arolina, 443 F.2d 1090, 1097-98. (4th Cir’ 1971) (ew

. bane Wenter, J concurring in part and dissenting in part):

Unit Md. StateNer rel. Bey v. Conneetiout State Boardof Parole, 443

F.2d 1079, 1047 42d Cir. 1971) . ringers y V. Brewer, 443° F.2d 942,

OT-960 “Osth’ Cir, WITT) Clay, J... dissenting } ; Rose v. Hashing,

{388 F.2d 91598. 103 (6th Cir. 19688 (Celebrezze, J.,’ dissenting) :

United States cr rel. Carioscia Vv. Meisner, 331. F. Supp. 655, 647

(N.D. Hl. Me ); People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, 27 N.Y.2d

376, 267 N.E.2d 238, 241, B18S'N.Y.S.2d 449 (1971); Warren ¥.

‘Michigan ao Board, 23 Mich. App. 754, 179 N.W: Jd 664, 670 n. -

22 TCt. App. 1970), appeal dismissed, 384 Mich. 812, 184 N.W.2d°

~ 457 (1971); Comment, Due Process and Revocation of Conditional

Liberty, 12.Wayne L. Rev. 658° 61966): S. Rubin, Duc Process [3

Required iW Parole Revocation Proceedings, June Federal Prola-

”-fronsd2, 45 (1963): . . ae aaa ;

. ° . = .

. : i

3 , . oat

: - 3

és ong

or. an opportunity. to contest or respond to- the charges.

No hearing was held, no witnesses were called to testify

against petitioners, no opportunity to: siamon witnesses

yras afforded them. No counsel was allowed to assist peti-

_tioners, no findings © were miade reearding the nllewed vio-

lations.* In shagt _ each man was snatched off the sttects.-

s r a <

and Summarily retu: ned to: pris on. ~~

aliiones in this “case each had ‘anrole revoked for

technical violations involv ine disputed issues of fact. Peti-

tioner. Booher. was, re-in iprisoned hecause it: was. allewed

that he le ft the territorial Hmits of O'Brie 2 ounty without

permission, and obtained a driver's lice nse under: an as-.

sumed "name after his own was revoked. Petitioner ‘Mor-

rissey was re-imprisoned on charges that he purchased an

automobile unde ‘roan assumed name, drove a car without -

permission, and. purchased furniture inder an assumed

name to obtain credit. soth men, when they finally learned

why they had been re- -mprisoned, ‘denied the truth of the. 7” —

charges against then They hay e spent the last three vours- ° .

in prison on. the basis of unproven allegations which they .

wish, bit have never been allow ed, to challenge.

The issue prese ‘nted hy this case 18, x relatively simple

one: is the Due P rocess ¢ ‘lause of the € onstitution. vio! ated >

by imprisoning aman fora long period of time on, another

® ene

Pee Curtis y amen’ 2 56 Towa 1164. 131 N cAV. 2d 1 (1964), ;

cert. denicd, 380 U.S. 958 (1965), holding that lowa law does not:

require a hearing upon the revocation of parole.

. the probationer may be * révoked’ atan cr parte proceed-

ing and learn about the: reyocafion ondy while in the sheriff's vary

on the way to-prisen. If.he is told why he was revoked, he may

have to be satisfied with the answer that the judge did not feel that

-he‘was making a satisfactory adjustment.” .F. Cohen. NS: niencing,

‘Probation avd the Rehabilitative Idcal: The View from Mcmpa

+2, sions Tex. L: Rev. 1 | (1969). =

man’s tnshbstanti: ited allegations that he has violated a.

condition of his parole?

The lanzuage of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear—

aman cannot be deprived: of his liberty. without clue process

oflaw. Before a man can be sent to, prixon. our most Fuda- .

“mental notions of fairness require at ‘the very least thai he

be informed of the charges upon which he is being im:

prisoned and that he be afforded: the opportunity to re-

spond to them. _Beeause, this opportunity was denieel - ‘ti-

tioners, they have bee ‘A uncons stitution: lly ‘mprisoned.

OL. ,

‘The seriousness of the lone of. a man’s ‘Seeedind, funda-

mentak concepts of fairness, and basic penological goals

of rehabilitation all require the application of due proc: *

ess before the revocation of probation and parole. :

An overwhelming number. of State and Federal courts,

rélying. primarily upon Goldberg ve Nelly; BOT US. 254-

(1YTO) and Mempa v.. Rhay, 389 US. 128.1967) 2 have

come to recognize'that the deprivation of freedom suffered

bya person whose oie as or parole is revoked is-such

Md . / . ‘

* Mempa/ lay been used primarily ‘to sfipport’ the proposition that:

due process requires the assistance of counsel ; at probation and

“parole revocation hearings. See.e.g.,.Gunsolus y. Gagnon? 10. Cr. L.

2282 (th ‘Cir. Dee: 28, 1971) ; United Stalés er rel. Bey v. Con-,

- mecticut State Board of Parole, es a n..1: Hewett x. North Caro-

lina, 415 F.2d 1316 (4th Cir, 1969) ¢ Ashworth.v. United States,

- 391 F.2d 245 (6th Cir.’ 1968). (per nauieays Groolsby v. Gagnon,.

suprd, n.1; Searpoelliv. Gagnon, 317 F.Supp: 72 (EAD. Wis. 1970);

People cv rel. Menechine v. Warden, supra, n. 1; Warren v. Michi--

gan Parole Board, supra, n. 1; Commonwealth vy. Tinson, 433 Pa.

5258, 249 Ad 549 (1969) ; Gargan vy. State, 217 So.2d 578 (Ct. App.

Fla. 1969); Sfaté-v. Seymour, 98 N:J. Super. 526, 237 A.2d 900

(196s). 3 :

, o

a “erievous loss that due process standards must be applied.

* to. the proceedings. 4 a 7 | .

As the Tenth Cireuit Court of Lppeals said recently, in

Murray v. Page, 439 F. Yd 1359, 1361-62- (10th Cir, 1970):

The interest. of: the individual parolee is hens

very great. ‘He has been found guilty of a erime,

deemed worthy of rehabilitation and. ‘consequently

given the privileze.of parole.. Parole revocation there-.

fore terminates. a valued, if conditional, hberty; per-

sonal fr ecdom——whether classified as a grace, privilege .

.or’as constructive custody—has been unalterably Te-

Barrel —e _ ee

* * * * *

Therefore while a prisoner doesnot have a constitu-

tional right to parole, once” paroled he cannot be’ de-

prived ‘of his freedom by méans inconsistent with: due

process. The minimal right of the -parolee to be in-

formed: ‘of the charges and the nature of the evidence

against him and to appear ‘and be heard at the revoca-

tion heari ing is inviolate. Statutory deprivation of this

right as manifestly inconsistent with due process: and ..

Is unconstitutional.” gn es

° All but eight states afford minimum due process upén the revo!

"cation of pakole. See Appendix A, which sets forth the law pezatd-

‘ing parole r revoc ation hearings 1 in al] states,:

® Accord: Gunsolus v. Gagnon, supra. n.1 (due provess requires

‘counsel at probation revocation hearing .; Peartlen v. Neuth hal

lina, supra, ne 1 (hearin® required for revocation of provation )

United Statce er rél. Bey Vv. Connecticut: State Board of Parole:

supra, n, 1 (due process requires counsel at parole revocation hear-

ing): Hahn vy. Buxke, 430 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1970) ‘hearing re-

quired for. revocation of” probation) : Murphy v. Turner; 426 F.2d

422 (10th. Cir. Ene Aer é oe de F.2d 214 (10th Cir.

a ’ ° F . +

The judicial position’ that due pr ocess: requires a hearing

upon the revocation of probation’ or "parole Is supported

- by, virtually all those who have studied the area. The Task

Force on -Corrections: of the President's Commission \

Law Enforeement and the Administration of Justice dp-

A , clar ed:

“VT Jhe need to insure that coercive decisions v@pily

- aliveting the dives of @ nders ‘Are net made through | ;

. prejudice, on the hasis of Inadequate or. incorrect: in-

> - formation, or without: rational relation to their pure

a poses or justifications, réquires, significantly areater*

alee ck salusns ards ‘than now exist in most correction: ul svs- -

tems. . resident’ x * Cotumission on Law bt nforceme nt -

m2 and Administration of Justice, Cyrrections | 3 (1967).

a) -' : o 2 ey , bat

The Task IF orce reeonun ended that all deejsions which po-

we altect conditidnal liberty be render ed only. after.

. +

n he arin:

‘It ix inconsisfentiwith onr whole system of ‘govern-

ment to grant such uncontrolled power ty any, officials.

‘9. Sparti¢ularly over the. lives of, ee ~The t fact thi it

\ tC, RAP tig aaa PR De IN E ae Oe Oe e aR Pa De a ea SO

T70). Cminimum due. phocess heating 1 eqnired’' for revocation of

parole): Hewett vy. Nor tha Aarolina, supra, vn. 4.( due’ process requires |

—. “counsel at probation ‘revoeation Tearing) »-Eleerr v. Hammond,

- 116 F.2d 982 "(6th Cir, WY41) (hearing xequired for revocation. of

~*. eonditional pardon) ; United States ex rel. Carioscia vy. Meisner,

supra, ne 1 Y due provess required for parole revocation hearing); ”

Goolshy ¥. Gaynor, supra, n. 1, heatiie requeted for revocation

of parele): Alots «f al. v. Ohio Adult. Parole Authoggty 330 F.

Supp. 665 (N.D. Ohio 1971) (urges overruling Toye Haskins,

‘supra and requiring hearing for’revocation of parole ES ople er

rel, Mencchino- ‘Vv. Warden, supra, no 1 (due proce Cs rea s hearing

“with counsel before parole revocation) ; Warren ¥. Michio n Parole

Board, supra, n, 1 (due process requires counsel. at pardhy ”

vation hearing) + Chase ve Page, 456 P. 2d 990 COKL Cr. A69) hear- *

ing required for revocation of parole). x: See :

. sf 4

’ . oe. ee . : : at

a pel rson “hi is been, convicted, of a crime ‘should not me ean

¥ . that he has forteited all riglits tg demand that he be.

\ 7 fairly treated by re als'\ ae . Plas oe

| \ 0-4. For some kinds " deGisions, sucli a decisions t9

| x Pree probation or oo offOers shoulel he ae. =

\ - corded the: basic elements. ‘of due process, sich as

te an notice, represé ntatign by conte I, and: opportunity ‘to: -

\present evidence . and to aes nel CTOSS: examine

. ’

es ‘celestial law, corrections, and ilie: process -to discuss Hiis*-

isstie inthe las “f few veats, The. A. B.A. Project on Mini-

“hum Standards of Crimin; al Justice: Stundarils Relating

6 Prov iding Defense Services + Approved Draft 1968),

.: recommends the appointment of counsel in pa role revoca-

tion proceedings, clearly enyisioning “a hearing in every,

such instance. -The American Law Institute’s Model Peni

-. Code. provides for-a hearing in every pa role. revocation,

8 with the assistance of counsel, American: Law Institute,

Model- Penal Code; <3084, £305.15 (1) (Pi ropphed Oflicis al:

be Draft, 1962). ay ek

on’ parole revoc: ition’ constitutionally “required, but that t

“Is required by sound pe nology as we ‘HL

7 See also, A.B.A. Projeet on Mirimum Standards ‘of 4 ‘Fiminal

Justice, Standards Relating to Probation (Approved Draft 1970) ;

President’s Commission on. Laj. Entorcement and the Administra-

tion of Justice, (prrections (1967); President's Commission on Law

Enforcement aidd Administration. of Justice, The Chall nge of.

Crime tra Freé Society (1967 ). oe aes ne

“I. Cohen, Scntencing, 47 Tex. L. Rev., supra, 2. Ww. ‘ohen,

Due Process, Equal Protection and State Parole’ ia ation Pro-

“-ecedings, 42. U. Colo: L. Rev. 1G (1970) ; Kk. Davis,-. Administrative

-'This view Is supporte «l by every other mk ijor study.of the-”

Comme ntators further agree not only that is a lenis.

Opposing witnessgs. Id. at $5, St. ae =

Oe ene

7 his ov.erw helming concensus as to the ineed fora, hes r

while ‘h both ‘the panies or rections si" vste ms are fated

te foster.» The parolee’ or pro vf fer is returned to sos

ciety we: he is encouraged to adopt Tt ‘walues and its’

“respect. for human dignity, Jiberty: arid- freedom. For-so-

e. clety to rust | him back: into prison without ‘affording even >

an opportunity, to he she: ird encourages cmbittermient and

“frustration. f oS ee : odes. ss

: S : “ . »

. . . e

a ae : . ‘ > ‘ . : i ; 3 ; ‘ .

‘ J , he parole system ts an enlightened effort qn the part’:

of society to rehabilitate e6nvicted criminals. “Cer-,

tainly no cireunstance could further. that purpose. to.

‘a greater extent than a firm belief on the part of such .

J offenders in tlie Ke 6 anliurried, objective and

thorough processes, 0 the machinery of Jaw, and

hagity ‘any circumstance could with greater effect im-

e .

Law 7 seatise, § $7.16 (995 58) ; 2 -Dawson, Sente scing—The ‘Dechied

as .to.

“the Penho-Cofrectional Proecss.-45. Minn. L. Rev.-.803 (1961) :-

] ype. - Length and Conditions of Se ntence CAmeri¢an Bar ~~

Proundayi ion revs S. Kag@ish,.The- Advocate and the Expert in |

‘Tobriner\ Dué Process Be hind Prison Walls, The Nation, Oct! 18,

1971; Vak Dv

Right to

Status.and the Priivilege Concept, 1969 Duke Ld: 139; Comment,

. oo Safeguards in Federal V'arole Revocation Hearings, AT

Nw. U LL. ove 737 (1963); Comment, Due Process, RW ayne L:

ss Rev. supra, nL; Comment, Freedom and ek cndchetins in Parole

Revocation Hearings. te Yale Ii.J. 368 (1962); Note, Parole Revox:

cation Procedures, 65-Harv. L. Rev: 300 (1951) ; Note, Discretionary —

Revocation of Probation and Parole, The Import of. Mempa v. Rhay,

tothe. Present System, 4 US... ‘Rev. 160 °(1969) 5 Note, Re-

Arrest of -Parolevs: ee ee 46° Wash. L.

Rev.175 (19705. < Pa. py ay

-* See, -¢.g., Comment, hacrvettene on the Admnistration. of

” Parole: 7 Yale: LJ. 698 (Se),

Oi.

e Revocation Hearings in “alifornia: The -

ounsel, JY Cal, L. Rev. 1215 (1971); Comingnt, .Parel«

on their part tha at “the inachinery of: the law is, arbi-

trary, dee hnici al, too. busy, or impetyious to facts.

Fleming v. Tate, ¥56 F.2d S48, 850 (D.C. Cir. 1946).

. . . o et . . <4

: ae : oe . s i : gay a, i o-

[tanust’ be recognized that “the need for fairness is as

urgent inthe parole-pracess as'e ‘Isewhere in the law ., .

’ Monks v. New Jersey, 08 N. i 238, 5 217.A.3 2d 193, 195 (1971).

It is fundanientally unfair to take away the freedoyn of:

prapitioners. or ‘paroles under conditions whieh encourage

arbitrary’ actions. by. failing to afford. even, “the inost mini-.

mal ‘protections ‘of, due pr OGeSs, “lO}ur constitutional

se heme dloes. not cohtemphite that SoC jotsanay ‘commit law’

. breakers to the ae icjous and arbitrate tions of —:

_ officials?” Sostig. _Metiinnis, 4? oP: 2S tS (ir.

IST1) -(e Z bane). ae the Sond C ireuit Court.of Appeals

stated in Enited State sek rel. dr Cannceti¢ ut State

Boara of Parole, SUpid3 Ht. Vd xt JOS9

a Chiet Justice surger ~ hits: rheantly commented ‘oti

2°

ete Spas toward, the desired. end ‘than a belief

a ae

» the-seeming effectiveness with which gtypie: "prison -

systems in this cot@itry “brutalize: ‘and dtehumanize”

inmates .. . One certain way to increase a prisoner's i

‘sense of resentment and to discourage his. will eventu-

ally to return to a normal life would he to deny him

hasic s safeguards essential to thap Func: unental fairness

of a dectsion to deprive him: of the liberty hie sained

upen parole: release. .

. . oe a

* a

Finally, it sinitat-he noted ‘that, as: demonstrated by “Ap-

“nendix: A, all but eight of ‘the states now hold hearings

_upon the revocation of. probation and parole, some with.

‘a full panoply of trial- type rights including represe ntation

of counsel, It seems obvious that the administr ative incon-

——

4 ee

ee g*

ee SE AEAS

nid mee ‘aused “by” requiring -hearings’ cannot: be very

eyeat if such an oyel “Ww helming jiumber of states conduct

cotild not: constitutionally. justify. their Genial: Bell ‘.

hui SON, “AQ? Us 433, 435 ped). 11 é ee eS,

: . aes le = : a z : mile

The traditional justifications for denying ‘due process

at the. revocation’ of - ne or parole are neither

2 pies nor legally | sound.

“e <

. e OSE -

“” As The C ‘énditional Liberty -E cad by « Person on

Parole or Probation Is Net a Matter of “Grace”

_ Which Can Be Revoked. at ‘me Whim of the State.

Tt has traditionally been said that, parole and ‘probation 3

are privilewes s bestawed as an act offgrace by the State.’

_artd _can there ‘fore be withdrawn at will, without the need. -

- for procedurat due process. Cf. Escoe.v. Zerbst, 295 U.S

> 490° (1935). st this Court in recent years has rejected

~ the theery that characte ‘rization. of an interest. asa: “privi-

lege’ ‘rather thanaa “right tific ary. termination’

wfthout due process. of law. In Goel: Aberg Ve ; Kelly, supra,

the Court ‘held. thiat ‘welfare recipients ninst’ be -given ‘a

hearing he ‘fore. their -hene fits could be terminated.”

eh — 4

“*,°1° See also: R: Dawant: Reni ccna ABA. supra,-n. 8: Jacob

and Sharma, Justice After Frial:. Prisoners’ Need for Legal: Scr-

vices tn the Criminal-Correétianal Process, 18 Kan. L. Rey. 493,

D40-550 (1970); S. KRacish, 45°"Minn. L. Rev..supra,n, 8:8: Rubin,

Developments in Correctional Laws, Crime ands Delinqueney 185

(April 9702. ROSktaty kai and Practice in Probation and. Paral

: ‘them? * though expel ses ineurted by holding such hearings.

; oa &

. Rececatin Hearings, 59 J. Grim. LC. & PS. 175, T9T-14964}.——__|

i For a refut: ition of the triditionaily, advanded arguments on

the detrimental impact hearings wowld have on the parole aud

probation system, see Rose v. Haskins, supra, 388 F.2d at 101-102°

(Celebrezze, J., dissenting) ; Comment, Due Process, 12 Wayne L. oe.

Rev. i supra, n. 1: authorities cited, n. 10, ont, ; a

° ' ¥ ar : : : .s oy . .

Mire We : ‘ ye ‘ Sees . te

Po a. ents pace eee

- . s . ” . re > .

. « Laas a n .

i ‘coustitttional: challenge, eaniot bs answ ered. by an:

argument that public assistance benefits “are “a ‘privi-

lege’ -and not a ‘vight? . The exte nt to jpyhich

“pr ocedural due Rrocess int bei afforded the recipient.

is influenced’ by: the: extent to which’ he may he “con. :

_ demned -to* Suffer, er levous: loss,” Joint Anti- saa tide

Refugee: Committee y MeGrath,- 341 QE SS. 123, 168

(1951) (Frankfurter, es concurring); and depends:

“upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that:

» ‘loss outweighs ‘the government interfst in- hamary

adjudication. 397 USS. at 262-26 See Aes

'" Goldberg v, K elly is onl one of a long Time of Supreme

Cort cafés which recognize that wherever: freedom or

security is threateried, ‘due proéess protections must be

ei ‘ accorded, whether the impending loss is characterized as

a- “privilege” or. a “right”? Thus, those facing discharge’.

from employment, Greene v; McE lroy, 360 U.S..474 (19% 59);

~Slochower v.: Board of ‘Higher Education: 350. US . 551

M956), or those brought before inv estigating committees,

Haunah ve Larche, 363-U.S. 420 (1960), ‘are entitled to

__ an adequate notice of charges and a hearing. on. those

of. ".

“charges.” :

Cases which hayé applied the Goldberg. rule, which

weighs the seriousness of. ‘the threatened loss against the

. Inconvenience to the State of applying due process, have

giving ‘that’ the loss of a variety of benefits, all of which

may be said to he les: significant than imprisonment, are

* See also, Sostke v. McGinnis; supra “(due process hearing. re- -

quired. before. time ‘credited to prisoner's sentence can be taken

away or other seriouwS punishment: imposed ) ; Van Alstyne, The

_ Demise of the Riyhts-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law,

81 Hary. L: Rev.. 1439. (1968); K. Davis, Aiinistrative Law

Treatise §7.04 (1970 Supp.), §7.11 (1955). ,

-”

tages re aye

ig iy 2 :

sufficiently grievous to require hearing _ These include -

garnishment- af wages,” loss of a ettis er’s : license, * Toss:

of the ability to putehase liquor,"” expulsion from school,” .

cee from: public hosing, Fe ‘and termination of water. >

See also, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U S. 398 (196: 3) 5 Spei iser

» Randall, 357 Us 513 (1: 58}. . ne ee

- T inie one’s freedoni. and. be. returned to ‘prison ‘for!

a = of years, is assuredly to.* ‘suffer a grievous, loss,”

and tlie interest jn avoiding that loss of freedom cert tainly

“outweighs the, xovernmental interest in summary. adjudi, ;

edition.” Coldbe rg. v. Kelty? s supra; 307 US: at 263: 9

In- balancing th inconveience wkd’ ‘cost. “to the ‘ate

~ against the — wrongful loss of an individual's ‘free-

~ dom,' for many vears, the result 1S clear. ' I -arole and ‘pro-

bation rev oc ation. aca such drastic curtailments of

( es.

;

Si reedom that due process standards must be applied. As" Pas

=the.Court wrote recently_in Bodilie v.C saa clicut, 401 U sv

371, 377-378 (1971) :

aN *

Karly i in our jurisprudence, this. Court voiced the doc-

——<

‘trine that ‘{w]herever™ qne is assailed in his. person

' 8 Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. B95 U.S. 337 (1969)...

“ Bell ¥. Burson, supra.

iw isconsin VY. Constantineau, 400 U: S. 455 ) agg .

. 16 Sher v. hoard of Edie ation, 424 BF 2a 741 ( 3rd Cie_1970),

7 Esealera ¥. New. York City Housing Authority, 425 2d 853

(2d Gir.), cert. ds nicd, 400. US. 853 (1970). ;

"18 Davis v, Weir, 328 F. Supp. 347 (ND. Ga. D. Ga. 197)

Compare: Menec hino Vv. Oswald, 430 F.2d. 403 (2d Cir. 1970),

(n6é due’ process required’ at initial applic ation seekin grant, of °

- parole) w ith TF nited States ex rel: Bey Vv. Connectic ut State ‘Board e

of Rarole, supra, in. 1 (fulj due proéess ine Tuding: counsel required: -

at revocation ‘of parole), , io ae

——4- —

s *

| tor his proper os there Te may Jetem> The teine that,

sdue process ‘of law, signifies. a right to be heard: in car 4

. one’ s defense’ has. continually: recir red*. . + Although. :

Im] any controv ersjes . jiav e raged about, the oe Sen

“and abstract words of the Due Process Clause,’ Ce

-there can be.no doubt that ata minimuni they require

that. Teprivation of life, like ty. or property hy adjudi-

cation. be preceded ‘by notice and opportunity for .

|... Shearing appropriate to the case fe Mations omitted]... .*

iB. Due Process Guarantees Apply to.the Rendocation Wy Ce

i] Probation and Parole Even if the Probatipner or

3 fe ee Parolce Is Considered in Some Sense Sall, Xo Be

eo Sie £ ustody”” Although Released From ‘Prison.

a The other major the Ory which has ‘been heavily relied

fipon to. deny minimal due process gui ‘antees in: re vocition _

of probation or parole equates ooh olee or probationer i

witli the prison “trusty” who, although he may be per.

mitted -outside the prison walls, “éannot complain. that his

By constitutional Tights have ‘heen violated if his - a

are withdrawn.” "Rose. Haskins, Supra, 388 F.2d at 95. E a .

— —~This: th \eory treats revoe ation of parole as a matter of ad-» ~ - 2

ministering prison’ diseipline. mee ae Po ee ae

: \ ’

The consitintonal rights : week he. claims were

violated apply prior to, eonvietion. They are not ap-

| Pics fe encase’ toa convicted felon whose convictions and sen- => *

. a) eee : . is . as eee , : ot soe . F z sie

: *"X third. traditio : s that the terms of a. probation or’ -

oe" at rder constitute a contract betweei n the sovereign. and the’

* conviet in w hich the latter agrees to xarious conditions, one of which

thay be revocation at the will of the sovereign without hearing or:

¢ Ae notice, - Any analo ey to the law of contracts, indicates that -this_

“acreement” is little more than‘a contract of adhesion. See Mofris-.

sey V. Brewer, supra, 443 F.2d at 962-063; Ylahn v. Burke, supra,

Jf. 7 $80 F.2d at*104-105; Rose ve Maskins, supra, 388 F.2d-at 99-100

i (Celebrezze, J., dissenting) .. ie ey ;

. : 14 © e b * oa” (el Ace Fa

eee sf : Pa aS : Ais tips ae

a ~ tences aire’ | “lid and aden table and w hose sentences -

have. not béen’ served. Rose \ - Haskins, supra, 388

oF, 2q' at 95. : ag EN oh ae Be

”

y; ene te 2

This tay is fallacious in tivo respects. ‘First, at wrongly 2

‘asstunes ,thiat incarcerated persons are not entitled tot the

safegudrds of the Constitution. But courts have held’ time

and again that the” Due Process Clause applies to prison:

ors.” : Particularly: apposite are those. cases which have |

‘Meld that a prisoner cannot be punished ‘without minimutn -

due process safeguaraly.” “AAS the Pecond Circuit etated, I

- Bostre \ ve McGinnis; supra: ae are ee S

nae substantial deprivatior 5 to ne visited upon as

priso is wise: that such: action’ Should at least

——— we s ” ; e | ‘ spa

dictontinm, facilities are state functions.” They-are subject ‘to. federal

authorit?: ‘only where _paraen dunt federalate nstitutional or statutory nt

-rights supervene. It is clear, how ever, that. in instances where state

‘regtwations applicable to inmates of prison facilities con fliet with

Such iat the regulations.may_ be invalidated.” Joh nson V. AVETYye

393 US 2. 486 (1969): a . er

<$.-

“There *\ no doubt that dise doling and adgnistriitign of state °

. °° Haincs\¥. Kerner, —— USs *—> 40 LW. 4136 “Jan. 13...

~ 1972): Sostre ¥.o McGinnis, santas: Holaa v.:Scafati, 430 K.2d 548:.

(Ist Cir. 1970) 3, Enited States exr-rel. Campbell v. Pate, 401 P.: a _

3 Laridman ¥. Peyton, 370 F. 2d 135, (4th ¢

1966) ; Urbano v. McCorkle, I. Supp. 10-Cre L. 2301

(DiNUJ., Nev: 17, 1979/ ; Sinelair.v. He ndlerson. $31- F. Supp. 1123 .

(ED. ‘La. 1971) : Landman vy. Royster, : 33 KF. Supp.- ‘621 (FD. Va.

1971) ; Cluchette v. Procuntér, 328 -F. Supp. 767 €N.D. Cal. 1971);

Bundy. v. Cannon, 328 F. Supp. 165° (D. Md. 1971); Meola v.. Fitz:

patrick, 222: ¥. Supp .878 (D. Mass. .1971) : Wright v. McMann,

59 (7th Cir.- 1963

321-F. Supp. 127 _.(N-D.N:Y- 1970) > Carter. Vv: McGinnis, 320 F

Supp, ti (WD.N.Y. W70) ; Dabney -v. “Cunningham, $17 F. .

:. Supp. - 2.D. Va. 1970) ; Caro! hers v. -Follette, 314F. Supp.

. 1014. SDNY. 1970) ; Morris ‘v. Travisono, 310.4 pp. 897

(D. R.I.- 1970). + Rodriguez v. McGinnis, 307- F. Supp. 627 (N. Dd.

ONL. -1969), afd, - F.2d -

. 1972) (en bane) y United States er. rel. Hancock v. Paic: ao FF.

; tec 202 (N.D. Ill. 1963).-

(Dockét, 34567,.2d Cir., Jan. 25, .

aa:

: ; x a > . , 1) ° . A

2 e oa be premised ¢ on facts” ‘rationally determined. .In Ue

fe on: most cases it would. probably be difficult tO: ‘and an int- ee s Z

ree ‘quiry fair. and: rational unless: the prisoner were con-. :

| Se a nr with the: avetisation, informed of, the evid nee*

a "tydeed. ‘Bostre, hok sate that fdue prvedss requires - Ag

- hearing befoxe ¢ wor time can, be taken from. a etnies = 4

bistiePthat due process applies to. punishment afteet-

a ing conditional liberty in the fufure® - Conseqiently, ‘due

|. process must certainly Ve applied to conditional) | liberty

pe - Drese ntly ‘enjoyed. Pee ee aay ga =

fe : | Those cases whieh hav e io ld. tat a prisoner who is tobe > ~ ;

we traiisferred from. a prison, to an institution for the crim~ “t

mally i insane must be afforde 1 complete constitutional pro-

ustody” ‘thedry. Ba. rstrom: , eee lye

- United States ex rel. Schuster ee

(2d. Cir. 1969). ‘The rationale of.

prisoner’ ¢ form of custody cannot be

dgstically changed without his being afforded the. protec-. —,

«tions of due process. * it see ms clear; therefore,’ that the

-‘ teetions, also weaken the *

“Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (196

58 he. > Herold, 410. B.2d., 107

-.’ -these eases ix that

. i parole ee Or probationer why enjoys his freedom on. the -.

+ - streets but who is suddenly seized and re- imprisoned a4

névessarily entitled to equal. due process safeguards. Tt’

; . ‘ ; . 6 mee :

:* Saas ¥. McCiinnis,. supra; ‘Nolan ¥. “Scafat i. supra, a Sie iS

; ire ed States er rel. Cantphell.v., Pate, supra, n. 22: United ‘States Be

ex rel. Mosher v. LaVallee, 321 F. Supp. 127 (N:D.N.Y, 1970):° °

Carothe rs V. Follette, supra, n. 22; Rodriguez v. McGinnis, supra, *

ft. Médlock v> Burke, 285 F. Supp. 67 (E.D. Wise. 1968) :

niled States ex rel: Hancock Vv. Pate, supra, n. 22." - 3

a 4 See also Williams v. Rot inson, 432 F 2d 637 (De, Cir. 1970) : ; \d

Covington vy. Harris, 419 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir.’ 1969) ; Edwards v. \

Schnidt, 321 F «Supp. 68 Cw: D. Wi ise..1971>). Ore!

3 a a --

. : ’ ‘ : : ae . as é

= \ < Fs A 7 pe 5

284 (0th Cir. Dee. 13¥ 1971); Sobe Ik. Reed, 82 27 F> Supp.

‘. streets, living with his, family, holding a, job, restricted Le

ay. “.

- a hearing, hefore being: punished or subject ted toa transfer

iy *

should also’ be noted that, paroleessand prabsitioners are en

titled to constitutional protections Ww hile actaally: on parole.

‘See e.g., Porth 2U naded States, “F.2d 10 CHL:

L: 29O4.(S S.D. N: X. 4971), both of w hich sti ek down conditions

which Ww ere held to impinge. on the parelees’ KF irst Amend.

-ment rig slits. a, ve oe. ae — 8

a6, = ke é -€

~ Sécondly, “the “construetiy e cl ustody™ theory is. neither

logic al nor r ealistic.. Surely the status of a man fide on: ‘the

omy: ‘in certatn are: is of his life and reguined to report to

his: supervising oflicer weekly or monthly, is entirely differ--:

“ent from the st ats. of a man, locked behind bars.» ‘The

“ prisoner is isolated from family and friends, cannot earn.

“money to: support, himself or his family, is subject to a

"welds ‘of rules and regulations that: reginent - ‘every:

aspect of his life, has*ho, privacy, no normal sexual outlets,

‘and, no control over his free dom ar his life. Morrisse’ y VY.

2 Bre wer, supra, 443 F.2d at 961; n. 1s (Lay, J. dissenting) ; er

ee also. Note, _Re- Arrest of Parolees, Constitutional ( me

‘side rations, 46° Ww ash. L: me Vc atg.\.-- parr ee

Furtheynore, if it were true that the pardlee: or pro-

bationer. continued to hel in the custody, of the State much —

-as a prisoner, one w ould expect. that he ‘would he entitled. -

to receive credit against his sentence for, the time he was

released. This : howeve ry, is. ‘rarely the case. _ See: Arluke,

A Summary ‘of Parole Rules, 15 Crime’ and. Delinquency

- 267 (1969) ; Note, Parole Rev ocation in th e Federal, System:

56 Geo: LJ. 705, 7325 733 (1968). ote to ae

Wrerctore. since a prisoner in aettial’ ‘éustbdy is granted

constitutional s safeguards; including the rizht. to notice and.

. . - ~ -

‘2 ‘ Oe so

- * - .

e .

. , a ef “* * ° . a

58 Se cl ‘4 se . Sa

nd . & » > ue %

°?.

| ae Xa -

which radically alters his status, fleas same prot lca ee

must apply to the m: man who. is only. fetionally in eu marae Saree |

while, ori probation or parole. se

he I ee as

Due. process requirés a sheasing | upon -revééation tae

| probation or eee, es ae ‘ :

A. The Crounds je Finding a Violduion of te es | S .

Conditions of Probation or Parole. fie Ace Nag,

. The ‘need for: a hearfyg sipon_ve rev ‘o¢ation ‘of probation or.

‘paro e is. emphasized when one recognizes low often revo- -

‘cation is based upon violation: of petty requirements bear-. $

ing little. or no. relation to, common concepts of, anti- social

behavior.

-. Some parole conditions, are ‘pinkalintie: most: are im- *-

i practical, others ‘impinge on- human. right’, ahd’ all)

. Tefleet - obsolete crimiriologieal conceptions. .On ‘the’

whole | they. project a “percept of” a man who doesn’t

: - exist. Arluke, op. cit. supra, = Crime and Delinqueney

‘ at 269. ee ee Me, Se ee

Conditions of parole or probation which: can tesulfi in rev 0-

-cation ean include consumption of liquor, changing job: or

residence, marriage ‘without: permission, driving a.car, in-

debtedness, violating a ‘curfew, contracting a venereal dis= ..

"ease, or leaving a preseribed location." Revocation for.

violating such patently trivial conditions. is common in”

every state, as illustrated in + Appendix Be

° -

‘

—_—— : -

5. Sep Appendix B, charting frequency y of common parole oe 4

tions i in each state. pe eae

: ; ees ae 2

Sh a aRe

o -°*

cation ,of a, man’s ; parole: for assogn

Sak Ste ‘

. & ‘

. e

- The violations - themselves are. lso often’ subject 6 i

* fictual-dispute. This Court has recet tly reversed the rey a

ing. with: other exe's |

_cony icts when’the only proof ‘of. the violation consisted of. 7

the. fact that ‘the ex-convicts were employed at the sane

establishment «where the parolee , worked. Arciniega A

om reeman, 404°ULS. 4 (ro71) (‘per curiam). Tn Fle ming ¥,

Tats supra, the parole e Was: “reimprisoned Yor Tes avine the

state without -permission, to attend hts sister’ ‘Tune ral.

Hr’ was not: pe srmitted to. produce testimony from his parole

sponsor who had given’ him, permission to. go, undef the

» amistaken be let tat he had the authority’ to do SO. Condi-

tional release. was rev oked in Moore ve. Re id, 246 F.2d 654

“@, C. Cn . 1957 )s on the" eround that writing ‘letters: toa i

* formér ecllmaté violated a®patole condition forbidding. ass

‘soci lation with persons- havi Ing a known ‘criminat hack-

| ‘eround.”* a a ai - : ; oe gees \ ..

Thus, the nature of a violation. can‘ often be fot, only.

- Inco rath but can turn ‘on. purely feetual questions

and fears about potential ‘future. misconduct}; Genet v. United

record and de nving this alleged fact). - * 4 .

States, 379 -P2d 966 (10th Cir. 1967) (revocation for failure to

“find ‘ sufffciet income to maintain ordered Jeyel of support pay-

whieh could be readily refuted if a hearing were allowed.

B. The Réquisites of ¢ a “Hearing.

This Court long ago émphasize “d that the “fundamental

requisite’ of due-process of law ts the opportunity to’ he

25 See ‘also Cited States er'rel. Bey v. Cannes fiat State Board’

of Parole, supa, n. 1 (revocation based priinarily on suspicipry

{

ments forfamily) > United States that as. 321. F.2d 339 (4th Cir.

1963) 0: revocation far failing to pay fine) ;- Goolsby v. Gagnon,

supra, n. 1 (revocation primarily for: leaving parole superyisor’s

offce without permission): Prople cr. rel. Menechito v. Warden,

svpra.n. 1 (revocation, for “consorting” with persons with criminal.

Bestar yale 2 ay pus: a

* heard? Grannis ¥ Ordean, 338 USS. "395, 304 (i914). In

- Goldber® . ty. Kelly, supra, the’ Court defined’ the’ minimal

Es pal of W-hearing as ane We aS

ely and. adequate: noticg detailing. the reasons ‘for’

va pl foposed [change in status], ‘and an effective oppor-

a tunity to detend by confronting, any adverse’ witnesses

- and -by _pkesenting: hIs\ own. argunientss and evidence °

ordlly. 397 US. at 267: 268."

‘give specifie arid detailed descriptions of the conduct com::

-plainéd of by the. authorities. See’ Groppi v. Leslie,

Fascist R e fuge e Committeen. MeGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-

“72 (1951). (F rankfurter, J. concur fing) ; In re Oliv er, 333

__ US. 257, 273 (1948); Sostre v. McGinnis, supra, 442 F.2d

at 203; Escalera v.N

supra. rr a

The accused must be allow éd to confront his accuse ers,

Goldherg. \ v. Kelly, supxa; Berger Vv. Caljfornia,. 393 US.

314. (1969) s. Pointer v. Teras, 380 U.S, 400 (196; 5): Willner

im os 6 ‘ommitt Ee ON Characte r ‘and Fitne ss, 873 U.S. 96° (1963);

Greene wv. McElroy, “360° U.S 474 (1959) ; Davis, 97.05

(1958), supra, n. 12. This is eapecalls erucial i in a parole,

ér probatiqn revocation situation where the faéts are dis: .

“puted. When a parolee or probationer is charged with a

"=. there are:no statu-

“tory or Judicial guidelines. to follow and no- interpretations

vagu € violation such as “consorting,

7 See cene erally : ~W. Cohen: Due Process, 42 UV. Colo..L. R.. supra,

n. 8: Puth and Carver,.Due Proéess and Senten: ang: from Mapp

to Monpa to MeGautha, 49 Tex. L, Rev. 25 (1970). ;

** See discussion, pp. 17- 18. supra, and Appendix B.

~*~

. - ' /

S.LW. 4151 (Jan"13, 1972) ; Pun

ecu York. City Housing Authority,

? . : ae a pe

of. parole, éonditions to which one. cam turn. Parole: oflice rs

may he ove rworked and i impr operly trained, and often they

are insufficiently informed about a parolee’s activities.”

They’ may even display, bias or animosity -towards the

“parolee «or ‘probatione - ‘For thesereasons, | it is inipera-

- tive’ that the acetisar ‘anid the: accused meet face to Lace

to allow the board -ta,. ascertain the ‘truth: : |

Certain principles have remained re Jatively ‘immiuta-

ble in our jurisprudence. One of these is that eee

or -ernmental Retion seriously injures an individual.

‘and the reasonableness of the action depends. on fact

findings, the evidence used to prove the Governnient's.

case inust be disclosédto the individual so that he thas

an-opportunity to Miow-that it is'untrue. While this is

important.in ‘the case of documentary evidence, it is

even more intportant. where the evidence consists of

the testimony of individuals whose me mory might he

faulty or who, in. fact, might he perjurers or persons”

- . motivated by malice, vindictiveness or jealousy. We

have formalized these protections in the requirements -

of confrontation _ and cross-¢ xamination: Greene %,

Mck lroy. supra, (3600 U =. at 496.

a .

In-Cuited. State ser rep.

* the parole hoard’ s failuye to produce its sources of informa-

Carioseia v. Mei ner, Supra, ne 1,

tion or to allow the pqtitioners to examine reports made

to the board was challenged. It was held that the board's

failure to produce its sources er, in the alternative, its-re-

. ports, vrolated the petitioners’ Sixth: Amendment right to

confront the witnesses against them. In reaching that con- |

‘

*° Task Force. Report, Corrections, supra n..7, at ‘6, 70, 97-99;

Dawson, Sentencing, supra n. 8, at 317-338.

. -_ | : oy

| sition, the court aie rved that sitioush the hoard alre: addy’

__proviiled some procedufal safegnards—a hearing. was held

reasonably soon after the alleged ‘vio! lation, and reasonably

near the site of the violation, and: the accused. could retain

éounsel and call voluntary ‘witnessés—more was Trecessary :

. “due. process requires an. opportunity for. the aggrieved

person to confront and cross examine adverse. witnesses.”

331 F. Supp. at 649, citing Goldberg v. Kelly, supra.

Opportunity for the presentation of witnesses on behalf

against unfair or arbitrary decisions. It. allows the man

the opportunity td corroborate his own version of events,

.to prove ‘an alibi defense; and in general’ to overcome the

ale ‘ . oe — . ‘ ® a . .

‘inherent suspicion as to his veracity by reason of his in-

earceration. It is not*contended. that the probationer or

parolee should have subpoena powers. Where, however,

material witnesses voluntarily come forward on iis behalf,

there is no logical reason for exeluding, their sworn teésti-

mony from a. hearing body, seeking to learn the truth. This

appears to be. such a basic precept of fairness tat courts’ -

often conclude, without more, that vohintary witnesses must

7 be allowed, as the Carioscia court held. The Fourth Cirenit.

Court of Appeals, in Bearden v.*South Carolina, supyo.

n. 1, has agreed:: * . . the parolee was entitled to notice -

‘of hts allezed ScEstie and opportunity to rebut the same,

-- including: the right to be heard pro se before: someone rep-|

resenting the boartl, and to present witnesses in his own

behalf,”*443 F. 2d at 1095 (emphasis added).

Finally, the decision reached “by. tie Boatd inst be

based on ev idence addueed at the he: ar ing:

a of ; ‘ i, :

oe 4 . which the ‘prisoner. has had. the opportunity to

. Tefute ...-To permit punishment to be imposed for

"reasons: not présentel and aired would j inv ite arbitrari I-

ness and-nullify the right to notice and a hearing...

The practice of going outside the record mM search of

bases forspunishmeént must cease. Landman v. Royster,’

a sets, oe F. Supp. at 653- oo4. : Sa ee

See Bs: Goldbe TY V. Kelly, supra, 307 U.S. at. 271; Es-

calara v. New York City” Housing Authority, supra, 425

‘Fi2d at 862- 3. ‘ety “es ,

Moreover, there must be some minimum standard of-

proot to justify a dee - Arciniega vy. Freeman, supra,

Thompsow v. Louisville, 362 US 199 (1960). In ckrerire qa

this Court summarily A ed 2 judgment of the 9th Cir-

cuit upholding the revocation of probation for violating

its conditions by associagng with ex-conviets. Who. were:

‘employed at the s same place as the probationer. It held -

that there must he * satisfactory evidence” of a violation,

and that “oceupational association, standing : lone, feduld

not: be] satisfactory. evieence on non- n-busintess ASSOC Jation

“violative of, the parole restriction,’ This: case suggests

that, not only must there be * satisfactory evidence” of a

» Violation of conditions of probation or parole, but dlso-

that sue h conilitions must be re asonably construed.”

' Dawson, supra, p. 367. See also, Appendix B.

A Aker See Md aes eee tek —

mos 7 a Pan

Bom oot ee ge,

} mets ~oe, | a,

For. the reasons stated above, the judgment below

should be. reversed. °

Respectfully submitted, aa an

- 06 Metvin LL. Wuir-

» MICHELE HeRMANN

1 oe oe Fe 3 Herman ScHwarrz

Ropert Pior KIN

Ricnharp SINGER

. . Jorn Gora

ae - _ a american Civ il Lihertees Union

. - 156 Fifth Av enue

New York, New York 10010:

. Attorne YS for Amicus Curiae

- - . . - . ar eee

February 1972°° . --——

eo * . om | -—- |

a . ;

;

‘ .

: Pn

7 e

° 4 : ;

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.